Americans for Tax Reform counters President Obama's double-taxing proposal in the media

“Ryan Ellis, tax policy director of the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform, argued that Obama’s efforts will hurt American business. “This will force companies to leave the country, and they’ll take their jobs and capital with them,” Ellis said.”

“Americans for Tax Reform called it a "job killing" tax increase, asserting that US corporate taxes are already the highest among industrial countries and that US companies face double taxation on their profits.”

“‘Obama's proposal will shove jobs and capital out of America and into foreign countries,’ said Americans for Tax Reform, pointing out that U.S. companies already pay a higher corporate tax rate of 40 percent domestically than in many other countries, and that forcing them to pay this rate on profits they make internationally will drive operations out of the country.”

Last week, the Trump administration announced a plan to lower out of pocket insulin costs for American seniors. This proposal will drive significant savings to millions of seniors through negotiation with the private sector, not price controls.

Under the proposal, released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), 1,750 Medicare Part D plans and Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plans have agreed to offer a range of insulin products at a maximum copay of $35 for a month’s supply.

According to CMS, seniors in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico will have access to a plan that offers insulin at this lower cost. Under the model, the average senior could see savings of 66 percent, or $446 in annual out of pocket costs. Over 3.3 million seniors take one or more forms of insulin, so this proposal could deliver significant savings.

This proposal also addresses a key flaw in the Part D coverage benefit. Currently, seniors can have different out of pocket costs depending on which phase of the coverage benefit they are in. The administration’s proposal will fix this and give seniors a stable copay for insulin regardless of which benefit phase they are in. This will be especially beneficial for seniors that are in the coverage gap threshold (between $4,020 and $9,719 in spending), who have to pay 25 percent of the costs of insulin and other medicines.

This proposal is a welcome example of the government working with the private sector to lower prices, instead of relying on government rules or mandates to dictate prices. 88 plan sponsors and major insulin makers Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi have signed up for this model, so there is significant support for the proposal amongst industry stakeholders.

In addition, this proposal draws a stark contrast with healthcare plans proposed by members of Congress that would expand the size of government. For instance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has a plan to impose a 95 percent excise tax on manufacturers that don’t accept government price setting. This proposal would harm American innovation and medical development, leading to fewer cures, and less R&D in the U.S. It would also serve as a stepping stone toward moving the American healthcare system toward a single payer, socialist system, a long-held goal of the Left.

The administration’s proposal to reduce insulin costs for seniors should be applauded. Instead of adopting price controls, this proposal builds upon the success of Medicare Part D by having the government facilitate competition between the private sector. This is the right way to reduce costs in America’s healthcare system and should be a model for future reform.

“I applaud Sheriff Troy Nehls' decision to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Texas voters are looking for solutions that get Americans back to work and grow the economy. Signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and holding the line on taxes is the first step in that process,” said Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform

Candidates running for public office like to say they will not raise taxes, but often turn their backs on the taxpayer once elected. The idea of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is simple enough: Make them put their no-new-taxes rhetoric in writing, so the promise is much harder to break.

There are currently 171 Pledge signers in the U.S. House and 48 Pledge signers in the U.S. Senate. Eighty-nine percent of all congressional Republicans have made the written commitment to oppose higher taxes. In contrast, ZERO congressional Democrats have made that promise.

“Voters have a right to know where candidates stand on taxes. The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is a simple litmus test that tells voters I’ll work to protect your wallet.” continued Norquist.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is pushing an 1,800-page Coronavirus package filled with unrelated, liberal priorities. The bill, known as the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act (HEROES), proposes spending nearly $1 trillion to bailout mismanaged state and local governments, contains a $25 billion bailout for the postal service, and extends an unemployment program for more 6 months that will endanger the economic recovery by subsidizing welfare over work.

As part of this proposal, Pelosi also proposes a suspension of the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions a policy that will subsidize high-tax states, does nothing to help the middle class, and rolls back the Trump tax cuts.

In 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) imposed a $10,000 limitation on state and local tax deductions, more commonly referred to as the SALT cap.

The cap was imposed to broaden the tax base within legislation that reduced taxes for Americans at every income level. For instance, the TCJA reduced taxes for roughly 90 percent of Americans and for taxpayers at every income level through lower rates, the expanded standard deduction, and the doubling of the child tax credit. A typical family of four with median annual income of $73,000 has seen a tax cut of more than $2,058, a roughly 60 percent reduction in federal income taxes.

Rather than building on the TCJA and offering further tax reduction for American families, Pelosi is pushing a policy that overwhelmingly benefit wealthy, blue states.

According to an analysis by the Joint Commission on Taxation (JCT), 94 percent of the benefits from repealing the SALT cap would go to taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year.

Rolling back the SALT cap would do nothing to help fight the Coronavirus, nor would they do anything to help the middle class. Rather than enacting Pelosi’s blue state giveaways, lawmakers should make the tax code fairer by repealing the SALT cap in exchange for further lowering tax cuts

Even some Democrats agree that removing the SALT cap is a terrible idea that would do nothing to help the middle class. Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) recently criticized efforts to repeal the SALT cap noting that it runs counter to Democrat ideals:

“We can say we’re for a progressive tax bill and for fighting inequality, or we can support the SALT deduction, but it’s really hard to do both of those things.” Lawmakers should repeal the SALT deduction entirely as part of legislation that offers broad based tax reduction for American families.

While Pelosi claims that her legislation is helping the middle class, this is empty rhetoric, as noted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):

“It’s bad enough that my Democratic colleagues want to unwind tax reform, but it’s downright comical that their top priority … is helping wealthy people in blue states find loopholes to pay even less”.

While Democrats are pushing long-held liberal priorities, Republicans have called for proposals that are targeted to the middle class and Main Street businesses. President Trump has called for tax cuts for businesses and individuals in order to give workers more take-home pay and give businesses the liquidity they need to survive the pandemic.

Republicans have also pushed the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to provide loans and grants to small businesses so they can continue paying their workers. In contrast, Pelosi and Democrats have played politics with this program and refused to hold a vote on providing additional funding to the PPP for weeks.

Pelosi’s proposal to repeal the SALT Cap is a clear example of using the crisis to push unrelated policy priorities. This proposal will do nothing to help Americans survive the Coronavirus pandemic and would overwhelmingly benefit wealthy blue states. It is uniquely unsuited to any pandemic-related legislation and should be rejected by Congress.

Indiana's primary election is tomorrow, Tuesday June 2, 2020. With the primary right around the corner, Americans for Tax Reform recently released the list of Taxpayer Protection Pledge signers for state legislative offices.

Unfortunately, we have to remind Indianans which of these active pledge signers voted to approve a significant gas tax hike in early 2017, HB 1002. It is also an opportunity to highlight those pledge signers who upheld their promise to taxpayers on a tough vote, with pressure from fellow Republicans to vote for a tax hike.

Below is the list of pledge signers with an asterisk next to those who voted for this tax increase:

ATR President Grover Norquist has released a letter in support of Russ Vought's nomination for OMB Director.

Vought has long been a champion of pro-growth, fiscally responsible regulatory reform, spending reform, and tax reform. He is the perfect choice to permanently lead the Office of Management and Budget and shepherd through policies that address Washington’s overspending problem and grow the economy.

I write in support of Russ Vought’s nomination to become the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Russ Vought has been a champion of pro-growth, fiscally responsible regulatory reform, spending reform, and tax reform. He is the perfect choice to permanently lead the Office of Management and Budget and shepherd through policies that address Washington’s overspending problem and grow the economy.

The OMB is in charge of promulgating the President’s budget, supervising agency performance, and implementing the President’s regulatory vision.

While serving as Acting OMB Director since January 2019, Vought has been a leader in addressing Washington’s overspending problem and cutting the red tape that inhibits economic growth.

Throughout this tenure, Vought has overseen some of the most fiscally conservative Presidential budgets in history. For instance, President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2021 budget balances in 15 years, calls for making the middle class tax cuts permanent, and includes $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction.

Vought has also been a key player in developing and implementing Trump’s deregulatory agenda, which kickstarted one of the strongest economies in American history before the pandemic hit. In the first two years alone, the Trump Administration reduced regulatory costs by $33 billion.

More recently, the President signed two executive orders designed to make federal agencies more accountable to the taxpayer. Trump’s “Transparency and Fairness” order prohibits agencies from enforcing rules that have not been made public in advance. Trump’s “Bringing Guidance Out of The Darkness” order stops agencies from enforcing informal guidance documents that have not gone through public review.

Importantly, the administration has made deregulation a centerpiece of the response to COVID-19, leading to the suspension of nearly 600 rules and regulations across the country. Trump’s most recent deregulatory executive order authorizes agencies to permanently repeal regulations waived during the pandemic if agencies determine they were never necessary in the first place.

As Acting Director of OMB, Russ Vought has accumulated an impressive record of advancing free market policies. Moving forward, Director Vought’s leadership on deregulation, tax reform, and spending reduction will be key to ensuring the U.S. recovers from the economic damage caused by the Coronavirus pandemic.

Senators should support his nomination and vote to confirm him as Director of OMB.

ATR today released a coalition letter signed by 36 organizations in support of President Trump’s Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery Executive Order. The coalition applauds President Trump for making deregulation the centerpiece of the Administration’s Coronavirus response and encourages him to make this deregulation permanent wherever possible.

ATR President Grover Norquist praised the executive order, saying:

President Trump’s executive order to slash red tape and directing all agencies to use their emergency powers to ‘rescind or temporarily waive damaging regulations’ is key to recovery.

President Trump and the Republican congress brought us strong growth, job creation and increasing wages by reducing taxes and the regulatory burden.

We can return America to prosperity the same way.

The Democrat congress opposes tax reduction, but President Trump is leading on executive orders reducing the cost and unnecessary delays caused by overregulation.

President Trump’s drive for more deregulation—first to fight the virus and second to restore growth — is moving full speed ahead.

We write in support of your Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery Executive Order (EO). As the focus turns toward restarting the economy and society, this EO will give businesses the flexibility they need to reopen their doors, create jobs, and safely get Americans back to work.

Instead of using the pandemic as an excuse to consolidate more power, you have made deregulation the centerpiece of your Administration’s Coronavirus response. This regulatory relief has streamlined our national response to the Coronavirus, leading to over 500 waived rules and regulations nationwide.

Most importantly, the Order directs agencies to review the impact of any regulations that they have waived or suspended during the pandemic and determine if they are necessary to reinstate. Permanently repealing these regulations – most of which were never necessary in the first place – will help grow our economy long after the pandemic has run its course.

Authorizing agencies to use the same emergency authority they have used to fight the Coronavirus to also waive regulations that stand in the way of our post-pandemic economic recovery will promote job creation, economic growth, and reduce the cost and unnecessary delays caused by overregulation.

The Order not only directs agencies to temporarily waive or suspend any rules or regulations that inhibit economic growth as we recover from the Coronavirus, but also establishes a “Regulatory Bill of Rights,” to provide businesses with more certainty and direction.

The “Regulatory Bill of Rights” directs agencies not to over-enforce when American businesses are clearly working in good faith to follow the law and keep their customers and employees safe. It is a set of ten regulatory principles that direct agencies to be fair and transparent in enforcing against any potential violations of law should there be an administrative proceeding.

Before the Coronavirus crisis, your pro-growth agenda of tax cuts and regulatory relief kickstarted one of the strongest economies in American history. We can return America to prosperity the same way.

As our country reopens, your new regulatory relief EO will jumpstart the economy and give businesses the flexibility and confidence they need to safely get Americans back to work.

We encourage you to continue removing regulations that stand in the way of private sector and government assistance during the crisis and to make as many of these regulatory waivers, suspensions, and adjustments permanent where possible.

Americans for Tax Reform recognizes the Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota incumbents and candidates who have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge ahead of the June 2 primary election. The Pledge is a written commitment to hardworking taxpayers and to the American people to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

“By signing The Pledge to the voters, these candidates and incumbents demonstrate that they will safeguard taxpayers from higher taxes,” said Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. “Pledge signers understand that government should be reformed in a way so that it spends and takes less taxpayer dollars, and will oppose tax increases that prolong failures of the past.”

New candidates sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge regularly. For the most up-to-date information on this race or any other, please visit the ATR Pledge Database.

Antiquated state laws have shut out competition and blocked the use of innovative technology in health care for far too long.

Incumbent providers claim these government barriers are necessary to ensure safety, but in reality, these protectionist policies hurt patients by driving up the costs of and reducing access to care. The pandemic has made these realities painfully obvious, so many Governors have made temporary changes to help fight the virus.

Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist was joined by Tay Kopanos of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, Latoya Thomas of Doctor on Demand, and Nick Schilligo of 1-800 Contacts in a recent virtual panel discussion about the importance of states building upon these deregulatory efforts and making them permanent.

“At Americans for Tax Reform, at our website ATR.org/rules, we’ve come up with 500 different regulations, rules, and laws that have been either repealed or suspended because they got in the way of trying to get health care to people, trying to get hospitals and respirators to people, trying to get doctors and nurses to people or people to them as rapidly as possible,” said Norquist.

One of the deregulatory actions that Governors have taken to avoid provider shortages during the virus is expanding the scope of practice for certain health care providers.

Nurse Practitioners, for example, are highly trained, thoroughly educated medical professionals who can examine, diagnose, and treat injuries and illnesses. They can also prescribe medication and, in many cases, are primary care providers. Despite this, only 22 states and the District of Columbia grant Nurse Practitioners full practice authority, meaning their license to practice is not contingent on oversight by the state medical board or a contract with a physician.

“In the remaining 28 states and two other territories, NPs are required by law to have a contract with a physician – a permission slip, if you will – getting additional permission from a physician to be able to provide those services to patients,” explained Kopanos. “Those really create delays. If you don’t have a permission slip, even though your education qualifies you to provide those [types of] care, you can’t provide it.”

Five Governors, including Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards, have issued executive orders completely waiving such requirements in their states. Others have taken baby steps in that direction by removing smaller barriers.

Governors in both red and blue states have also issued orders suspending some of the rules and regulations that restrict the use of telemedicine. The expanded use of telemedicine during the pandemic has allowed people to avoid getting sick or spreading the virus in a doctor’s office or hospital, and has made it easier for the elderly, who may have a harder time traveling, and people in remote areas to communicate with a doctor.

“[F]ar too many states have outdated and unnecessary laws and regulations that really prevent the full and widespread adoption of telemedicine,” explained Schilligo. “What some states require is a two-way interaction…some states require audio-visual, like we are doing now. Some states require a two-way audio. Some states even require that you have an in-person visit first to establish that patient-provider relationship, and then you could use telemedicine.” These pointless requirements make it more difficult for patients to use telemedicine.

State licensure laws are another barrier to telemedicine, and health care in general, for that matter. The pandemic has highlighted the way licensing requirements can prevent doctors and nurses from helping out – both in person and via telemedicine – in states with a higher number of cases.

“Then you also saw states that really did respond to it and were really immediate in waiving those out of state licensure requirements,” explained Thomas. “As long as they [providers] were duly licensed in another state, many of those states were able to just kind of acknowledge and recognize and allow them to see patients during the COVID period.”

To avoid provider shortages during the pandemic, Governors in many states, including Texas Governor Greg Abbott, issued orders granting some type of licensing reciprocity for medical providers.

While these temporary changes are a step in the right direction, Governors and legislatures should not stop there. Expanding upon these orders and making them permanent will increase the number of options for patients, improve quality, and naturally reduce the costs associated with health care.

“When you cut that bureaucratic red tape, those permission slips, and some of those hoops that come with it, costs of care go down,” explained Kopanos. “When we look at states that require those types of relationships against states that don’t, those head to head studies show [not only] that patient outcomes are high, but we’re [also] saving money in costs, were having decreased readmission, and there is also a bureaucratic cost savings to the states.”

“It’s great to have these temporary allowances for companies to come in and provide that care, but legislatures are still going to need to act in order to allow that in the long term,” explained Schilligo.

“I mentioned before that there are states, like Illinois, that have lifted that barrier, but with a condition. That you can practice here, only if you already have a relationship with a patient here. You also have states like California and Maryland, unfortunately, who’ve lifted that barrier, but have said ‘but you have to be employed by one of our hospitals or health systems,’ and that’s not fair market,” explained Thomas. “[T]hose are all conditional things that don’t allow for practices like ours, who have relationships with a number of patients and who want to support those larger systems and allow them to focus on some of the harder hit needs there.”

“The idea that medicine can work on computers and on phone lines and that people who have been trained to be Nurse Practitioners can actually do all the things that have been trained to do, and that people can cross state lines both on phones and on foot to provide the same services in New Hampshire that they’re capable of doing in Massachusetts seem kind of like obvious steps forward,” said Norquist. He added, “but Uber probably seemed obvious after somebody started doing it.”

The coronavirus crisis has led to a lot of changes for occupational licensing.

Suddenly, states have recognized out-of-state licenses for health care workers like nurses and doctors, in order to bring in needed help for the frontlines. For similar reasons, a number of states have relaxed requirements for people trained in health care fields to get their initial license.

The pandemic shined a spotlight on licensing hurdles that were getting in the way of workers fighting coronavirus.

Of course, in normal times, that is the point of occupational licensing. Often driven by political favoritism, these rules restrict work by placing barriers between people and jobs. Barriers that can be very arbitrary, and costly – which has a pernicious effect on low-income workers and people starting off a career.

Now that it has been made clear how damaging licensing rules are for workers and movement between states, it is the perfect time for lawmakers to remove these burdens.

One great way to do that is universal recognition, meaning if someone has earned and maintained license in good standing in “state A”, that license is recognized in “state B”, and they can work in their new state without starting from scratch to earn a new license for the same profession.

If doctors and nurses who require extensive training can go from one state to another, cosmetologists, barbers, landscapers, and alike surely can as well.

Arizona and Missouri have passed universal recognition already, and North Carolina and Ohio currently have similar bills pending.

These states are great examples of the negative impact of licensing, and how to act to address that problem.

According to an Institute for Justice study, the cost of licensing to Ohio amounts to 67,000 jobs and over $209 million lost. Meanwhile over $6 billion in resources have been misallocated.

On North Carolina, IJ reports, “It takes just 39 days of training to earn a license as an emergency medical technician in North Carolina, but substantially more to become a licensed manicurist (70 days), massage therapist (117), skin care specialist (140), cosmetologist (350) or barber (722). Occupations like these, where training required does not line up with public safety concerns, make possible targets for reform.”

Ohio embarked on a path of reform in 2018, passing a landmark sunset review process for licenses that requires licensing boards to recommend which licenses should be eliminated, and which should be retained. The burden of proof is on the boards, as they must prove a license is critical to public safety to keep it. Licenses that the legislature does not vote to keep eventually sunset.

The Buckeye State also passed licensing reciprocity for military spouses, Senate Bill 7, signed into law by Gov. DeWine this year.

Now, House Bill 432 sponsored by Rep. Jena Powell, and its Senate companion sponsored by Sen. Kristina Roegner and Sen. Rob McColley, offer the chance for full universal recognition.

The state’s think tank, the John Locke Foundation, writes, “Let’s not forget that occupational licensing reform has long been a bipartisan issue. In recent years “red” and “blue” states alike have made significant licensing reforms. In fact, one of the strongest cases for reforming occupational licensing was made in a 2016 white paper by the Obama/Biden administration.”

Both the Trump and Obama administration have recommended licensing reform to the states.

North Carolina is not stopping there, more licensing reform proposals are also on the table, including a sunset review process similar to Ohio’s.

This is the kind of comprehensive approach that will make Ohio and North Carolina more friendly to workers, especially people starting out new careers, and moving in from other states.

It shouldn’t take a pandemic to show how restrictive occupational licensing is, but since it has, taxpayers should urgently support reform that gets these arbitrary government barriers to work out of the way.

“Every American should be free to work as an independent contractor. It is not just rideshare drivers but millions of Americans who work for themselves and choose that freedom and opportunity. Some politicians want everyone to have a boss, work 40 hours a week in the office and be easy to tax and unionize. Some Americans choose to be their own boss and work for themselves as independent contractors. They should have that right without asking anyone for permission,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

"As unemployment claims soar and businesses close their doors permanently, it is vital to protect independent contractor opportunities. If backwards politicians are successful in forcing a widespread reclassification of contract workers, it will destroy thousands of jobs at a time when traditional employment is scarce. Contractors and the businesses they work with, unfortunately, need to be protected from certain politicians."

The Helping Gig Economy Workers Act permits digital market place companies to provide, through the duration of the COVID-19 crisis, payments, health benefits, trainings, and PPE to users of the digital marketplace without it being used as evidence in any federal, state, or local law, ordinance, or regulation for the purposes of determining whether a user is considered an employee or independent contractor or the company is considered a joint employer.

The last thing needed during COVID-19 is an assault on independent contractors and gig economy workers, but that is exactly what Democrats at the state and federal level are doing.

The gig economy is synonymous with innovation and opportunity. It created efficient restaurant delivery services to keep small businesses afloat when dining in was not an option. It provides grocery delivery services for vulnerable populations who cannot risk going to grocery stores. With schools and childcare centers closed, the gig economy creates flexible work for parents who no longer have access to childcare services. Protecting the gig economy is imperative for our national recovery.

The legislation, if passed, would be in place until June 30, 2021, or until the end of the current public health crisis.

Sen. Braun said: “Bottom line: this commonsense bill will provide a safe harbor for businesses who want to help the temporary and service workers helping us during COVID-19.”